Dominant misconceptions and alluvial flows between Engineering and Physical Science students

Anna Chrysostomou, Alan S. Cornell, Wade Naylor
{"title":"Dominant misconceptions and alluvial flows between Engineering and Physical Science students","authors":"Anna Chrysostomou, Alan S. Cornell, Wade Naylor","doi":"arxiv-2408.12083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article we assess the comprehension of physics concepts by Physical\nScience and Engineering students enrolled in their first semester at the\nUniversity of Johannesburg (UJ), South Africa ($2022$). We employ different\ngraphical measures to explore similarities and differences using the results of\nboth pre- and post-test data from the Force Concept Inventory assessment tool,\nfrom which we calculate dominant misconceptions (DMs) and gains. We also use\nalluvial diagrams to track the choices made by these two groups of students\nfrom pre- to post-test stages. In our analysis, we find that DMs results\nindicate that participating Engineering students outperformed Physical Science\nstudents on average. However, the same types of normalised DMs persist at the\npost-test level. This is very useful when tracking persistent misconceptions,\nwhere when using repeated measures and alluvial diagrams with smaller groups of\nstudents, we find that Physical Science students tend to make more chaotic\nchoices.","PeriodicalId":501565,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - PHYS - Physics Education","volume":"64 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - PHYS - Physics Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2408.12083","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article we assess the comprehension of physics concepts by Physical Science and Engineering students enrolled in their first semester at the University of Johannesburg (UJ), South Africa ($2022$). We employ different graphical measures to explore similarities and differences using the results of both pre- and post-test data from the Force Concept Inventory assessment tool, from which we calculate dominant misconceptions (DMs) and gains. We also use alluvial diagrams to track the choices made by these two groups of students from pre- to post-test stages. In our analysis, we find that DMs results indicate that participating Engineering students outperformed Physical Science students on average. However, the same types of normalised DMs persist at the post-test level. This is very useful when tracking persistent misconceptions, where when using repeated measures and alluvial diagrams with smaller groups of students, we find that Physical Science students tend to make more chaotic choices.
工程学和物理学学生之间的主要误解和冲积流
在这篇文章中,我们对南非约翰内斯堡大学(UJ)物理科学与工程专业学生第一学期的物理概念理解能力进行了评估(2022 美元)。我们采用不同的图表测量方法,利用力概念清单评估工具的测试前和测试后的数据结果来探讨相似性和差异性,并从中计算出主要错误概念(DMs)和收获。我们还使用冲积图来跟踪这两组学生从测试前到测试后阶段所做的选择。在分析中,我们发现 DMs 结果表明,参与测试的工程学学生的平均成绩优于物理科学学生。然而,同样类型的归一化 DMs 在测试后水平上依然存在。这对于追踪持续存在的误解非常有用,因为当使用重复测量和冲积图法对较小的学生群体进行测量时,我们发现物理科学学生倾向于做出更混乱的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信